The world goes Green

[brenthutch 383]

https://phzoe.com/2021/02/16/fortunate-global-greening/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

more vegetation, more food, less desert.  Yet another climate fail.

 

[BIGUN 1,049]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

more vegetation, more food, less desert.

Zoe Phin

B.S. Economics, M.S. Quantitative Finance

[brenthutch 383]

21 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Zoe Phin

B.S. Economics, M.S. Quantitative Finance

So when she uses NASA data, it is no longer valid?  Kallend fell into this trap.

 

Edited February 26, 2021 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,380]

22 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Zoe Phin

B.S. Economics, M.S. Quantitative Finance

She also lists "Mrs. Smarty Pants" as one of her qualifications.  Can't argue with that!

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, billvon said:

She also lists "Mrs. Smarty Pants" as one of her qualifications.  Can't argue with that!

What about NASA and Harvard?

[brenthutch 383]

Why do you guys get so pissed off when you are wrong about the “existential threat” of climate change?  Shouldn’t you be happy that the world is not going to end in twelve..uh I mean nine years.  Shouldn’t you be happy that we are not going to run out of cheap, reliable abundant fossil fuels for the foreseeable future?  Why can’t you celebrate the role fossil fuels have played in making the world safer and more prosperous?  

Edited February 26, 2021 by brenthutch

[Phil1111 908]

53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://phzoe.com/2021/02/16/fortunate-global-greening/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

more vegetation, more food, less desert.  Yet another climate fail.

 

Your incessant scouring of the interwebs for false information never ceases to amaze.

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What about NASA and Harvard?

"As usual you're wrong.

"There is a clear greening trend in boreal and Arctic regions, a result of rising temperatures. For example, Svalbard in the high-Arctic has seen a 30 percent increase in greenness, according to Rama Nemani of NASA’s Ames Research Center, a co-author of the review paper in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. The greening was concurrent with an increase in mean summer temperature from 2.9° to 4.7° Celsius (37.2° to 40.5° Fahrenheit) between 1986 and 2015."

The greening arising from increased co2 and warmer temperatures especially in the north has acted to slow global warming.

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The warmer temperatures.......has acted to slow global warming.

Let’s just let that marinate for a bit.

Edited February 26, 2021 by brenthutch

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

https://phzoe.com/2021/02/16/fortunate-global-greening/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

more vegetation, more food, less desert.  Yet another climate fail.

 

Look man, I've pointed it out gently but now that time has passed. You have zero credentials. You did 20 years in the military, thanks but no big deal, and you tossed drogues at the home town DZ until it folded in spite of your amazing contributions. You have an MBA and bank experience that shows up no where in your posts. You may not be able to see it but since Happy Valley folded, and you have no anchor or crowd to please, your posts have become more frantic and insistent. Blow this silly forum off and go do something.

Edited February 26, 2021 by JoeWeber

[olofscience 420]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Shouldn’t you be happy that the world is not going to end

What is it with you and thinking we actually like problems? Look, we fucking hate lockdowns. We fucking hate climate problems too. We wish both didn't exist, and I really wish you were right. But I'm not stupid.

Both with covid (500,000 dead so far) and climate (harder to count the cost, but it's rising) and you're saying "lalalala everything's actually fine"  (switching to "even if it's not we can't do anything about it" if pressed enough)

We're doing something about both problems. What are you afraid of, that we'll accidentally improve things? Do you have some emotional attachment to fossil fuel technology? Some of the tech is interesting, I've actually worked in that industry, but if you've developed an emotional attachment to it you need help.

[BIGUN 1,049]

14 hours ago, brenthutch said:

So when she uses NASA data, it is no longer valid?  Kallend fell into this trap.

Brother,

I GAVE you the NASA information. I have to assume you didn't read it. I did read her code. She merely used NASA's data to derive her own resultset. If I take your Aunt Mary's recipe for BBQ sauce and change one ingredient; is it still Aunt Mary's BBQ sauce or my use of Aunt Mary's data to derive my own while pointing at Aunt Mary's recipe as the foundation for my result.

Ron posts some Pete "Something" video that an engineer friend of his sent him. The Pete "Something" is a Market Analyst. That means he has something to sell. Pho Is a stay at home mom who thinks her degrees in economics and finance give her some insight as to interpreting or arguing against science. 

"Kallend fell into this trap."  You know; Kallend, Bill and  and I may have differing philosophies on social issues, but they probably have more experience in science than most people on the planet and rather than even attempting to learn from them; you and Ron throw hacks at them as uncontroversial evidence that they're wrong.  Brother, that is just plain silly.

[billvon 2,380]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

Both with covid (500,000 dead so far) and climate (harder to count the cost, but it's rising) and you're saying "lalalala everything's actually fine"  (switching to "even if it's not we can't do anything about it" if pressed enough)

That's pretty much the foundation of one type of climate change denial.  There are four basic types of climate change deniers, and Brent exemplifies all four.

Type 1 - "The planet's not warming, stupid!"  There is an entire thread on this forum entitled "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!"  This type of denier says that the earth is not warming, that the NASA/NOAA/Hadley data is all wrong, or it's been hacked, or it's been intentionally changed.  They see a few years in a row cooler than a previous year, and extrapolate that to a long term cooling trend.  They say that since it was cold yesterday there cannot possibly be any warming on average.  They point to predictions by Gore that didn't come to pass, and attempt to say that since one prediction failed, all will.

Type 2 - "Sure the planet is warming.  But it's not our fault, stupid!"  They try this via several angles.  They claim that since humans are physically small, and the world is physically big, humans cannot possibly affect it to any significant degree.  Mars showed shrinkage of its ice caps a few years back; they used this as "proof" that it was the sun, not AGW, causing the warming.  That angle allowed them to be snarky and condescending as well, which was a plus.  "I guess clueless alarmists think there are SUV's on Mars!"   (This angle has been mostly abandoned now that the Martian ice caps are growing again.)

Type 3 - "Sure, we are warming the planet.  But all the changes will be GOOD, stupid!"  This is Brent's current angle, as exemplified in this thread.  They use the greening of some areas the planet, reduction in costs for heating, the migration of arable climate towards the poles and even sillier arguments to "prove" that all this warming and anthropogenic gas will all be for the good.

Type 4 - "Sure we're warming the planet and that's bad.  But it's too late to do anything, stupid!  So we might as well keep burning."  Which you mention above,  This is becoming more popular as the other three become less effective due to education.  Ironically they use the same positive-feedback arguments that scientists use, claiming that since it got warm enough to melt permafrost there's nothing we can do now to stop the warming - so why are you idiots trying at all?  They also use the classic Luddite arguments that new, cleaner technology is 1) impossible 2) too difficult 3) too disruptive or 4) harmful to the economy,

And although most of the above are mutually exclusive (i.e. you can't claim that we're not warming and that we are warming at the same time with any sort of consistency) deniers frequently flit back and forth between each argument depending on the meme they saw expressed in the media that day.  It's a fairly easy way to tell a true denier from someone who just has an honest doubt/question/misunderstanding.

[CygnusX-1 42]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Type 4

Bill you forgot one:

Type 5 - "Sure warming is happening and we may or may not be causing it. But it is not happening fast enough, so let's burn more, stupid!" I fall into this category because have you seen the cost of beachfront property? I live about 5 miles from the ocean because this is as close as I could get and still have reasonable housing costs. But with melting glaciers and ocean levels rising, eventually there will be beachfront property at my house. I want beachfront property before I die! I dream of the day where I can look out my front door and see my neighbor's house across the street fall into the ocean. Then and only then will I have beachfront property and not have to move to get it. Additionally, people fall into this category when they live "up north" in states like IA, MI (or maybe even PA) where is so freaking cold. You know up there in the Artic circle. They are pissed off that they can't move to someplace nice. So they want the warm weather to come to them. Increased temperatures are a benefit to them - so bring on global warming.

Edited February 26, 2021 by CygnusX-1

[Zoe Phin 0]

I'm just a stupid stay-at-home mom with a degree from an Ivy League that manages over $100 million dollars, employs 23 people, and has taken 7 semesters of physics and astronomy courses (while earning her degrees). Why would I know anything about science?

I don't credit my success to the type of economics I learned in school. And if that was a lie, what else can be?

It's funny to watch climate alarmists believe they have a basis in science. They don't. They have zero experimental evidence and zero thermodynamical basis. All they have is post-hoc and affirming-the-consequent logical fallacies.

Do you have any questions?

[billvon 2,380]

21 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

I'm just a stupid stay-at-home mom with a degree from an Ivy League that manages over $100 million dollars, employs 23 people, and has taken 7 semesters of physics and astronomy courses (while earning her degrees). Why would I know anything about science?

I don't credit my success to the type of economics I learned in school. And if that was a lie, what else can be?

It's funny to watch climate alarmists believe they have a basis in science. They don't. They have zero experimental evidence and zero thermodynamical basis. All they have is post-hoc and affirming-the-consequent logical fallacies.

Do you have any questions?

Sure!

You have claimed in your "steel greenhouse" post that the inner sphere will not warm when enclosed by an outer sphere.  

You may have noticed that plants outside see dew (or frost) formation when they are under a clear sky, but not when under an awning or other cover.  (And indeed farmers do just that - cover sensitive crops - to prevent frost damage to their plants on cold nights.)  How does that work, if covering something has no effect on its radiative emissions and reabsorption of those emissions?  Are farmers silly alarmists, as well?

A second question.  In your example you say 100% of the heat energy is radiated outwards; none inwards.  How does the outer sphere "know" to send all its energy outwards?

 

 

[olofscience 420]

26 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

has taken 7 semesters of physics and astronomy courses

oh wow. Impressive. 7! That's 6 more than 1!

That settles it then.

27 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

They have zero experimental evidence and zero thermodynamical basis.

Just a question...those 7 semesters, how many were retakes? Did you pass any of them?

[Zoe Phin 0]

Farmers also know that adding a cover doesn't raise the temperature. Less cooling is not warming. Less negative is not positive.

http://phzoe.com/2020/04/08/do-blankets-warm-you/

As to why it's warmer during a cloudy night versus a clear night, the proper question should be asked: Why are there clouds to begin with? The answer: because it's warm enough to have them. If it wasn't, they would've never formed or would have rained out. There is horizontal heat transfer. Warmth picks up water vapor in the Carribean and then rain drops in Georgia (where I live). I don't consider that a mystery.

But what if we take the globe as a whole and thereby nullify horizontal heat/mass transfer?

Then you get:

http://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/

'How does the outer sphere "know" to send all its energy outwards?'

Energy only flows from hot to cold. We call this energy: heat. Why does a waterfall have water falling down? How does the river know not to send water up?

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Type 1 - "The planet's not warming, stupid!"  There is an entire thread on this forum entitled "there's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998!"  This type of denier says that the earth is not warming

 

It’s warming, just not enough to worry.

“The globally averaged temperature departure from average over land and ocean surfaces for January 2021 was the seventh highest for the month of January in the 142-year NOAA record

There is only 2.9% chance of 2021 ending as the warmest year on record.“

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/global-climate-202101

 

[olofscience 420]

17 minutes ago, billvon said:

How does the outer sphere "know" to send all its energy outwards?

The fact that she has to attack an "amateur scientist" who posted what looks like a bad steel sphere analogy looks rather desperate, then she lumps all climate scientists, all their work with this person and declares them wrong.

There's plenty of experimental evidence, and the thermodynamical basis of climate change is so simple, it doesn't even need those pretentious code snippets she has on her posts.

[Zoe Phin 0]

"There's plenty of experimental evidence"

Such as?

[Zoe Phin 0]

Sorry, Billvon, looks like we'll have to wait for moderator to clear my post for you.

[billvon 2,380]

23 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

Farmers also know that adding a cover doesn't raise the temperature.

It actually does.  It's how they save crops from freezing.

Quote

 Less cooling is not warming.

Yes, it is.  In the sphere example, you get maximum cooling from being exposed to open space (zero radiation incoming.)  It's why plants get dew on them - and sometimes freeze - as well.

Keep in mind that when there's a risk of frost, it's not that the ground or the air gets too cold.  The ground temperature is still in the 40's and 50's.  The problem is that the things exposed to the open sky - the plants themselves - radiate away all their heat into the sky and cool even further, into the 30's.  And they freeze.  That's why you will see frost warnings even if the air temperature stays above 35F.

To prevent that, farmers cover their plants with cloth.  Now the cloth is exposed to the sky and it radiates half its heat that way.  But (the important part) it also radiates half its heat downwards.  And the plants don't freeze.

In that case, less cooling is warming, and farmers know that.  Their crops survive.  They stay warmer because they cool less.

Quote

Why are there clouds to begin with? The answer: because it's warm enough to have them. 

So there are no clouds over Antarctica?  

You might want to reconsider that theory.

Quote

Energy only flows from hot to cold.

Incorrect.  If that were true, you could not use a room temperature laser to heat up an already-hot piece of metal to the point that it melts.  Lasers are used for that purpose all the time.

[olofscience 420]

12 minutes ago, Zoe Phin said:

"There's plenty of experimental evidence"

Such as?

https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

Seriously, it's not even debated in scientific circles now. Your sugar factory analogy is pretty funny in how convoluted you needed to make it. It could've been a lot simpler, but then it would show that you were wrong.

Edited February 26, 2021 by olofscience

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, CygnusX-1 said:

Bill you forgot one:

Type 5 - "Sure warming is happening and we may or may not be causing it. But it is not happening fast enough, so let's burn more, stupid!" I fall into this category because have you seen the cost of beachfront property?

That sounds like a type 3.  The changes will all be good!

[JoeWeber 2,294]

8 minutes ago, billvon said:

That sounds like a type 3.  The changes will all be good!

There might be a type 6. Not my problem. Give your kids my best regards.